DETIALED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Status Claims 1-7 are pending. Claims 8-16 have been canceled. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 5 is a dependent claim that recites the method of claim 1 for people “who are at risk of developing sarcopenia.” However, claim 1 recited a method for “treating sarcopenia.” Thus, claim 5 is indefinite because claim 5 fails to distinctly point out the method of using low-molecular-weight collagen. The scope of claim 5 is unclear as it is unknown whether the method intends to be used for people in their 30s or older who are at risk of developing sarcopenia or to be used to alleviate or treat sarcopenia. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1 , 4 and 6 -7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hausmanns et al. ( WO2020127929A1 : Published 2020 ; see attached translation obtained from EPO on 03/23/2026 ) Hausmanns et al. teaches the method of using of a collagen peptide with a molecular weight in a range f rom 0.18 to 10 kDa for treating sarcopenia [claim 1 and 9 - 1 0 ]. Therefore, a method for using low molecular weight collagen to treat sarcopenia is anticipated. Regarding claim 4, the collagen peptide taught by Hausmann et al. can be applied in a method for treating degenerative loss of muscle mass and improving muscle strength [claim 9 and 1 0]. Therefore, Hausmann anticipates using a low molecular weight collagen for inhibiting a reduction in muscle strength and increasing muscle mass. Regarding claim 6, Hausamnn teaches a food supplement, food, or luxury food and a pharmaceutical preparation comprising a collagen peptide having a molecular weight in a range from 0.18-10 kDa [claims 1 and 10-1 1]. Thus, method using a low molecular weight collagen in a pharmaceutical or food composition is anticipated. Regarding claim 7, Hausmann specifies that the food or luxury food item may be in a functional food preparation such as protein bars, instant powder for the preparation of beverages , milk, milk products, and milk substitutes. [009 5 ]. The applicant defines health functional foods as a “ processed food with high medicinal and medical effects to efficiently exhibit bio-regulatory functions in addition to nutrient supply. Hausmann also mentions that the pharmaceutical composition may be in the form of tablets or capsules [0092]. In present case, the food may be prepared in various forms such as tablets, capsules, powders, granules, liquids, pills, and the like [pg 20]. Thus, Hausmann anticipates using a health functional food composition and provides examples found acceptable by the applicants, such as powders and tablets. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hausmanns et al, ( WO2020127929A1 : Published 2020 ), as previously applied to claims 1 and 4-7. The range of the collagen peptide taught by Hausmanns is from 0.18 to 1000 kDa [claim 21]. The instant range of an average molecular weight of 1000 Da (1 kDa) or less mostly encompasses and overlaps with the applicant’s range. It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date to claim the instant range because one of ordinary skill in the art could predict with reasonable expectation that suck a range would be successful at treating or alleviating sarcopenia. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hausmanss et al. ( WO2020127929A1 : Published 2020 ), as previously applied to claims 1 -2 and 4-7, in further view of Miyata et al ( US8022038B2 : Published 2011 ) . Ha u smanns discloses using a collagen peptide having a molecular weight in a range from 0.18 to 10 kDa to treat sarcopenia [claim 1 and 9 ]. Hausmann also teaches that “the term ’collagen’ is understood to mean a peptide that includes the sequence glycine-proline, glycine-4-hydroxyproline or glycine-X-4-hydroxyproline, preferably the repetitive motif (Gly-X-Y) n , where X and Y may be any amino acid, preferably proline and 4-hydroxyproline ” [017 3 ] . Hausmanns does not teach the collagen tripeptide that is a 2-10% by weight Gly-Pro-Hyp . Miyata et al. discloses a composition for promoting the production of type 1 collagen containing silybin and Gly-Pro-Hyp [claim 1 and 5] . Miyata et al. claims a food with Gly-Pro-Hyp in an amount of 0.1-10% peptide by weight [claim 7 and 8], encompassing the instant range. Miyata also teaches that “ Gly-Pro-Hyp is a peptide composition obtained through specific decomposition of a collagen or gelatin component by collagenase, and is known to be digested and absorbed more quickly and efficiently compared to traditional collagen, gelatin or any hydrolysate thereof ” [Col 6 line 17]. The MPEP states that if prior art used in its normal and usual operation would perform the method claimed, then the method is considered anticipated by the prior art device [see MPEP 2112.02] . While Miyata claims a composition containing Gly-Pro-Hyp [claims 1-8], in the specifications Miyata shows the evaluation of Gly-P ro -Hyp treatment on human skin models [pg 12 line 18]. The method of using a Gly-Pro-Hyp treatment is thus, expected. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to use the peptide and range taught by Miyata in Hausmanns’s composition. There would have been a reasonabl e expectation that using’s the range encompassed by 0.1-10% weight of the Gly-Pro-Hyp tripeptide would lead to better digestion and absorbance, compared to traditional collagen , improving Hausmann’s treatment of sarcopenia. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hausmanns et al. ( WO2020127929A1 ) as applied to claim s 1-4 and 6-7 above, and further in view of Volpi et al ( Volpi, E., Nazemi, R., & Fujita, S. (2004). Muscle tissue changes with aging. Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care , 7 (4), 405–410 ) . Hausmanns et al teaches using low-molecular weight collagen for people at risk of developing sarcopenia. Hausmanns et al. do not specifically teach the people are in their 30s or older. Volpi et al teaches that “ m uscle mass decreases approximately 3–8% per decade after the age of 30 and this rate of decline is even higher after the age of 60 ” and that this involuntary loss of muscle mass is known as sarcopenia [Introduction]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to administer low-molecular-weight collagen to people in their 30s or older because that is when involuntary loss of muscle mass starts. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Hausmanns teaches that collagen can be used to treat sarcopenia and the risk of developing sarcopenia becomes apparent a fter their 30s when muscle mass declines. Summary Claim s 1 , 4, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 2 . Claim s 2-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 3. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SACHI JAUHARI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3769 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 9-4 . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Lianko Garyu can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-7367 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /SACHI JAUHARI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1654 /LIANKO G GARYU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1654